Santorum wins endorsement from
Michelle Malkin, Tom Tancredo, others.
Gingrich tries to take half of Florida delegates.
Former House Speaker Newton Leroy McPherson Gingrich [R-GA] ticked off some "real" conservatives in the aftermath of his resounding defeat in Florida by whining to the media that if you combine his poll standings with those of Congressman Dr. Ron Paul and former US Senator Rick Santorum, the Christians beat the Mormon. For that reason, Gingrich said, Santorum and Paul need to drop out of this "two man" race. Had they done so before Florida, his vote—added to the votes he would have received from both Dr. Paul and Sen. Santorum—would have put Florida in his win column, not in the win column of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

The Republican National Committee—not the Florida Republican Committee—arbitrarily decided that any "winner-take-all" States who held their primary before April 1, 2012 would be forced to forfeit half of the delegates, awarding them to the losing candidates based on their percentage of the vote. Here's the problem: the Republican National Committee is not the "super boss" who gets to decide how the delegates are doled out by the States during the primary election. According to Article I, Sec. 4 and Article II, Sec. 1, that's the sole prerogative of the States. For some reason today, federal bureaucrats (not elected by the voters), and judges (who assume the right to amend the US Constitution by whim and decree) believe they have the authority to take from the States their constitutional authority to determine when the primary takes place and how the delegates are awarded. The State, not an umbrella organization of bureaucrats and federal politicians, have the sole constitutional authority to decide how their delegates will be distributed—and when their primary election will be held.

Gingrich has challenged the awarding of all the Florida delegates to Romney based on the RNC's rules to all State GOP organizations. In December, 2011 RNC Chairman Reince Priebus warned that any "winner-take-all" State which violated the April 1st rule would be obligated to split their delegates between all of the clients as a penalty for holding their primaries earlier than the GOP wanted them held to protect New Hampshire's "right" to hold the first primary in the nation. (The DNC did the same thing in Florida in 2008. The delegation was rightfully reinstated (when it was seen that giving them to Hillary Clinton would not upset Obama's win). However, this should be a court challenge filed by Romney since the RNC has no constitutional authority to change how delegates are awarded. Keep in mind, neither the RNC nor the DNC are constitutional entities.. Nor, for that matter, are political parties. Constitutionally, the States themselves are the final arbitrator of how the delegates are awarded.

But Gingrich's arrogance and his challenging the delegates in Florida, I think, brought some backlash in the form of a few conservatives deciding it was time to endorse the other "anti-Mitt candidate," Sen. Santorum. The first to do so was Fox News contributor and columnist Michelle Malkin, who for some time has been describing the GOP presidential contestants as "a pageant of imperfects." On Wednesday, Feb. 1, after Gingrich took his electors challenge to the RNC, Malkin endorsed Santorum who, she said, "...is strong on border security, national defense...and, he's never written any "contracts with the Earth," and she said, "...most commendably, Santorum refused to join Gingrich and Perry in indulging in the contemptible 'Occupier' rhetoric against Romney.:"

Also on Feb. 1, as he was campaigning in Colorado, Santorum picked up the endorsement of Congressman Tom Tancredo as the former Colorado politician/school teacher introduced him at the Colorado Christian University in Lakewood. Also endorsing him on Wednesday were former US Congressman Bob Schaffer [R-CO] and former Colorado Lt. Gov. Jane Norton. Tea Party US Senate Candidate Sharron Angle [R-NV] who lost in 2010 to Sen. Harry Reid (and SEIU which controlled the Las Vegas voting machines) endorsed Santorum on Thurs., Feb. 2. If he continues pulling popular conservative endorsements, Newt may find he's fighting Ron Paul for third place as Santorum positions himself as the official "anti-Mitt."

What does it mean when our national debt
is too big and the national economy is too small?
It means that our nation has just joined the third world. Thankfully we still have hot and cold running water and a choice of supermarkets around the corner from our homes—if we still own one. But, one more year of Barack Obama (let alone one more 4-year term) will put us on equal footing with our third world partners (those who are now enjoying our factories and our jobs), particularly since Obama kept his campaign promise to his minority constituents to redistribute the wealth of the white middle income workers of the United States. But not to the American underclass as the minorities to whom he made the redistribution pledge believed, but to the underclass of the third world who needs the largess of the United States to afford the products they are manufacturing to send back to the United States and to the rest of the industrialized world which is now being downsized by the princes of industry who are looking at the human capital of the third world to fill their own purses with new wealth in the 21st century.

Here's the real shocker. Thanks to Obama's deliberately failed stimulus programs (which were never intended to stimulate our economy, but rather, only the failed economies of the collapsing financial systems of the emerging nations which triggered the financial meltdown in the industrialized world), the US national debt now stands at $15.23 trillion—equaling the economic output of the United States. In 2010, the gross domestic product [GDP] of the United States was $15.3 trillion. The last time our national debt equaled or surpassed the US GDP was during World War Ii when the United States fought a two-front war against Germany and Japan—and simultaneously financed the war efforts of all of our allies in Europe and Asia.

Sadly, the United States committed both economic and political suicide by allowing the princes of industry to ship the majority of our industrial strength to China. America will never again be able to respond to the type of threat this nation, and the world, faced from 1933 to 1945. Those who will be our enemies in any future global war now control America's manufacturing since almost all of our industrial plants are now located in China, the Muslim nations in Southeast Asia, and Mexico. If you recall your world history in 1917, German Foreign Minister, Arthur von Zimmerman urged his government to sign a military treaty with Mexico that would bring the Mexicans into World War I if America attacked Germany. Mexico would attack the American Southwest. The prize Mexico would win if Germany and Japan prevailed was the land they surrendered to the United States in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo on Feb. 2, 1848 that ended the Mexican-American War. Tragically, America will not win another global war. Why? Because a nation without the capacity to create and replace the weapons its needs to win a war when it is under attack cannot prevail. If you think not, just ask England. Or France. Or Belgium. Or, for that matter, ask the Soviet Union. Germany, which prepared for war in 1933-39, literally defeated all of Europe because none of the European States had the industrial capacity needed to meet the challenge and defeat an enemy that simply overwhelmed them. A nation whose debt dwarfs its economy is the 97-lb. weakling waiting to surrender to the 800-lb. gorilla.

Real rate of those without jobs today is 11.4%
not 8.4%. Dept. of Labor Bureau of Statistics
showed real unemployment was at 16.1%
in August. Long term, chronic unemployed
job-hunting workers are still not counted.
(Editor's Note: on Sept. 15, 2011, I reported that the "official" US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployed statistics stood 16.1%. (The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not track unemployed workers when their benefits run out. They simply disappear like an unwanted stepchild.) Officially, the total unemployed in August was 9.1% because that is the percentage of unemployed people drawing benefits. The "official" numbers on those collecting unemployment dropped to 8.6% in November, and the leftwing pundits announced that Barack Obama's jobs plan was working (although there is no "jobs plan" other than Obama "talking points"on putting people back to work).

The talking points couldn't be farther from the truth. Employment rose in November and Decemvbr only because retail chains were hiring temporary people for Christmas. At the same time, at the end of November, 315 thousand unemployment benefits recipients ran out of unemployment checks. The same thing happened in December. More than the Christmas jobs, what caused the "official" unemployment rate to drop from 9.1% to 8.6% were close to a million people who ran out of benefits—at the moment they needed extra money to buy a few Christmas gifts. But to Obama, this was a good thing. Forget the fact that another million families were going to have a lousy Christmas last year, the numbers made Obama look good at the precise moment he needed them to look good—when he started his official reelection campaign. Jobs are, in Obama's venacular, Number One going into the 2012 election. And, if his Labor Department—and the leftwing media—could fan the "fact" that unemployment numbers dropped another 0.2%, well then, so much the better because it shows that Obama's "recovery" was now working.

Last week the Zero Hedge website noted that the worker population in the United States rose last year by 1.7 million workers. Yet the workforce grew by only 275,000 people, meaning that 1,425,000 people lost their jobs during the same period. Using more realistic long-term averaging, the study calculated the current unemployment rate at 11.4%, not 8.4%. In an op-ed piece in The Washington Times (1/10/12), the editorial writer noted that while Obama's numbers keep looking better, long term unemployment rates do not—particularly when you factor in the part-time worker who is holding down two, three, four or more part-time jobs just to get by. Keep in mind, that even a job whose worker gets 12 to 20 hours a week is counted in Obama's statistics as a fully-employed worker. The Washington Times observed that "...the Zero Hedge analysis noted that by extending the logic of reporting progressively fewer labor force participants..." (by simply ignoring those unemployed people who are not collecting benefits) "...America will officially have no unemployed when the Labor Force Participating Rate hits 58.5%, which should be just before the presidential election."

Obama is playing the shell game created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s to prove that his economic recovery plan was working when in fact America was sinking into a decade-long depression created not by President Herbert Hoover, but by FDR's communist meddling to institutionalize the free enterprise system. Still rising unemployment is adroitly concealed by simply ignoring all unemployed people who are no longer collecting benefits. That bureaucratic mumble-jumble was actually created by the FDR Dept. of Labor in 1935 to convince the American people that Hoover's Depression was getting better thanks to FDR.

Obama inherited an unemployment rate of 5.8% and, as he began to redistribute the wealth of the American middle class to the rich bankers who are heavily investing our tax dollar "loans" in the third world, he quickly converted the United States into a society in which 9.3% of the work force was living on the gratuities of the state and where a like amount were being supported by family members, or they were waiting for the sheriff's department to post a foreclosure notice on their door. Like FDR who blamed his redistribution of the wealth schemes on President Herbert Hoover, Obama easily blamed his on President George W. Bush.

Washington Post/NY Times/Bloomberg blogger Ezra Klein (Rush Limbaugh's "chickified guy"), picked up a few sentences from the Financial Times of London that he described as a "fresh look" at something that's actually old news that does not bode well for the Obama Administration. Luce commented that The Financial Times observed that "...[a]ccording to government statistics, if the same numbr of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11%." The only difference between 2007 and 2011 is a 5.3% unemployment spread that does not take into account the unemployed whose benefits ran out and they gave up job hunting. Add that difference to Luce's 11% and you have a figure that closely dovetails with the Labor Department's 16.1% total unemployed in August. Luce's numbers, adjusted for those who gave up trying to find work, adds up to 16.4%. A far cry from the Bureau of Labor Statistic's "help Obama win reelection" number of 8.4%.

Obama orders Christian symbols removed
from all US military chapels worldwide
As commander-in-chief of the United States military, Barack Hussein Obama reportedly issued an edit to enforce military regulations that require the removing all Christian symbols and icons from all military chapels in the world on Nov. 23, 2011 after someone in the Afghan government protested the large chapel cross at the Christian chapel at Camp Marmal just outside Mazar-e Sharif, Afghanistan. The complaint argued that the Christian symbol is an affront to Islam. The media initially reported the Obama edict as requiring only the removal of a single large crucifix displayed outside the chapel at Camp Marmal in northern Afghanistan. Interestingly, Obama's edict was levied against a German military installation since Camp Marmal is a not a US base, but one in which the US Army only controls its chapel.

Camp Marmal is actually the largest German military base of the Bundeswehr outside of Germany. The base hosts the largest group of NATO forces in Afghanistan. The interfaith chapel on the base is supervised by the US Army. Outraged soldiers told Politico, which reported the story, that the cross made the soldiers feel like home. Others said they found comfort in the cross. One soldier told Politico that "...I really don't understand why Christians are always attacked. If it was a crescent moon on top of a mosque, it would never be taken down."

A Pentagon spokesman, US Navy Commander William Speaks confirmed a Fox News query that the cross had been removed after the military, or rather the military bureaucracy, received a complaint. "I've heard," Speaks said, "that there were some that were upset about the cross to begin with. Our job as military service members is to abide by the UCMJ..." (Uniform Code of Military Justice) "...and other regulations to ensure that all religious denominations and religions of our service members are treated fairly," adding that it was his understanding that the rule applied not just to Camp Marmal but all US military chapels.

The action was apparently justified by the Obama White House which is now waging an open war against Christians and Jews based on Army Reg. 165-1, 12-3k which states: "The chapel environment will be religiously neutral when the facility is not being used for scheduled worship. Portable religious symbols, icons, or statutes may be used within a chapel during times of religious worship." A permanent identity marker, such as a large crucifix which denotes that the building houses a Christian chapel cannot be construed as a portable marker or symbol that you can pack up when there are no church services taking place. Of course, the US military has a rule against just about everything.

"Symbols," the military regulations regarding US chapels in foreign lands direct, "...are to be moved or covered when not in use during services. Distinctive religious symbols such as crosses, crucifixes, the Star of David, Menorah, and other religious symbols will not be affixed or displayed permanently on the chapel interior, exterior or grounds. Permanent or fixed chapel furnishings, such as the altar, pulpit, lectem, or communion rail will be devoid of distinctive religious symbols." Had Camp Marmal been a US installation and not a German installation, and the chapel a real US military chapel and not a German chapel basically loaned to the US military,. Obama would have unquestioned authority over it. However, think of Camp Marmal as temporary German soil in Afghanistan (since the US troops stationed there are billeted in a German military installation) and the right of Barack Obama to order the removal of Christian symbols from what is, in reality, a German chapel, is questionable.

What does all of this mean? It means that US military personnel who practice either Christianity and Judaism are allowed to go to the Muslim nations when they are called upon to defend, and perhaps die, for the Muslims who live there. We must keep our "candles under a basket" so as not to contaminate the minds of the Islamists we are sent to protect, with the light of Jesus Christ.